WBIGHT V. THOMAS. 717 �by yirtue of judgments obtained against them. A demurrer was interposed to the bill, which -was sustained, and the bill dismissed, from which decree the plaintijEfs took an appeal to this court. �The principal facts alleged in the bill, and npon which the controversy must turn, are these : E. Nutting & Co., on the twentieth day of July, 1875, being in straightened circum- stanees, conveyed all theii property to ceitain persons in trust for the beneût of all their creditors equally. This con- veyance was made under the act of the general assembly of this state, which proyided for the voluntary assignment of Personal and real property in trust for the benefit of credit- ors, and regulated the mode of administering the same. The grantees in this deed accepted the trust, and, submitting the matter to the Marion civil circuit court, assumed the execution of the trust under the order and jurisdiction of that court. �This deed of trust was duly recorded in the several countiea in which the property assigned was situated. After this took place, and before the commencement of proceedings in bank- ruptcy, variouB creditors of E. Nutting & Co. instituted suits and recovered judgments against them in several courts, which judgments, if the deed of trust before referred to is invalid, became a lien on the real property of the bankrupts. In January, 1876, B. Nutting & Co. were adjudicated bank- rupts by the district court of the United States for this district, and the plaintiffs became, by virtue of the proper proceedings in bankruptcy, the assignees of the bankrupts, and by opera- tion of law became vested with all the property of the bank- rupts. After this action of the district court the Marion civil circuit court made an order directing the trustees in the deed of trust before mentioned to convey all the property of the bankrupts to the assignees in bankruptcy, who, this being done, took possession of the property, and ever since have held the same. �Among other suits that have been commenced in the cir- cuit court of the state was one by some of the judgment cred- itors to set aside the deed of trust on the ground that it was fraudulent and void under the law of the state; and the bill ��� �
